Van Nguyen - someone had to start this.....

[ExecutoR]

Not one mention of the guy who was executed in the USA yesterday either.
Oh thats right, he wasnt an aussie.
a couple of days ago... and yeh i did earlier in this post, well actually come to think of it... maybe not directly... but i referred to the 1000th death in 30 years (28 actually)

:p

[luther]

Van Nguyen's own lawyer said that he was getting the death penalty in Singapore for something that in Australia he would probably get 5 years in prison. That says a hell of a lot more about the problems with Australia's legal system than it does with Singapore's. Why are Australian's so intent on giving the impression that drugs are OK? They're not.

Singapore have every right to try this Australian using their system as he was in their country. Randoid, if we caught a Singapore citizen trafficking heroin in Australia, are you suggesting that it is fine that they be handed to Singapore to be put to death as it is one of their citizens?

Do I believe in the death penalty? Yes, especially for murderers and paedophiles! Is it right in this case? Probably not, but it was still well known, and Van Nguyen took the risk. Is it a deterrent? Well, Van Nguyen certainly won't be smuggling again, and I would suggest his brother won't either, so from that, you have to say yes.

What annoys me the most in all of this is the political point scoring from the likes of Brown, Beazley and Stott Despoja. I believe the Government did all they could, starting 2-3 years ago when he was first arrested. They lobbied the Singapore Govt right up to his hanging to get him off. THey just did it without the fanfare and media attention, as that is exactly why the SIngapore Govt could not grant clemency. The media in this country destroyed any chance Van Nguyen had by making it all so public and political, thus not allowing Singapore to back down without losing face, and making it look like it had grovelled to Australia.

As for boycotting Singapore, their economy is way stronger than Australia's, and Australia is nothing but a small blip in it. We won't make a difference. Mind you, I feel like signing up to Optus and travelling Singapore Airlines just to show them that some Australians support their right to their own laws.
[/soapbox]

[petefletch]

The media in this country destroyed any chance Van Nguyen had by making it all so public and political, thus not allowing Singapore to back down without losing face, and making it look like it had grovelled to Australia.
Exactly.
In fact I seem to recall a movie which I think was set in Thailand (can't remember the title or whether it was factual or not) and it had that exact scenario.
All was proceeding well with the trial and it looked like the accused might get a reasonably light sentence until the media blew it up into a big deal and demanded that they be released or given a minimum sentence. Of course the judge responded by handing down the maximum penalty.

The media can often do more harm than good.

[RANDOID]

What a total load of rubbish so for instance if someone from Amsterdam where it is legal to smoke pot ect freely, they should then be allowed to go to Singapore stand around in that country and use the drug but only be punisable by the laws of thier country where in this instance they wouldn't as it is legal in their country?You'd deport them for breaking your law but the sentencing (since no crime was broken) would happen in there own country and constrained by there own laws


In some Arab countries if a woman is raped the father and brother can accuse her of having an affair and decide whether to stone her, so if that girl was visiting here and it happened and the father murdered her on Australian soil, you would say oh well that's their laws ours don't apply to them and let them go on their merry way.Well if she's not an Australian citizen we have to right to constrain our morels on them. deport him and let his country settle it.


Not one mention of the guy who was executed in the USA yesterday either.
Oh thats right, he wasnt an aussie.He was an American... executed by Americans... with clear adherence to their own laws and conducted on a person inside there spear of influence...


Do I believe in the death penalty? Yes, especially for murderers and paedophiles! Is it right in this case? Probably not, but it was still well known, and Van Nguyen took the risk. Is it a deterrent? Well, Van Nguyen certainly won't be smuggling again, and I would suggest his brother won't either, so from that, you have to say yes.An what if people are falsely accused? are a few innosent deaths meaningless as long as we get some of the bad guys?

I think its better to sentence them to Life (real life not this 25 year crap) imprisonment. let them spend 40 years rotting in a cell knowing just how much society despises them. Death is a release, the realisation that they will never be free is real torture...

[amber.2]

I don't believe another country should be able to impose its laws on people who are outside there spear of influence. In that case a tourist can only be negatively affected by the government. The tourist can not benefit from the foreign government, they are just constrained by there laws.

An proper government benefits and constrains a person. as a non-citizen they are not entitled to the benefits of the government and therefore should not be constrained by its laws.

A better and fairer scenario is to set up a law that claims that any crime committed by an Australian citizen (with sole Australian citizenship (they can have more than one)) is to be tried and convicted on Australian soil, and as such be constrained by Australian Law. People who break the law outside Australia should be deported at the expense of the Australian Government and face an Australian legal system.

The purpose of Law in a country is to impose and enforce the values of that country. Should laws constructed and sculpted for citizens another country be imposed on people who that law was not meant for?

but realistically I’m not talking about changing the scenario to what i mentioned 2 'paragraphs' ago, But to prevent foreign countries from imposing the death penalty on our citizens.
Thats the biggest load of rubbish ive ever heard, if an australian murdered some one in america where the death penalty existed ,and he was sentenced to death,are you saying the usa should send him home for us to pay for his keep for the next 50 years,
When you go to any country be aware of the laws of that counrty, dont expect the australian taxpayer to pay for your wrong doings.Van knew if he was caught it was the hangman waiting for him and i have no sympathy for him if he had of returned to australia with his 400 grams which is 26,000 hits on the street .What are the chances that some ones loved ones would of overdosed and died even if .05%thats 52 people its better they caught him there .before he arrived back here

[BiggyRat]

Thats the biggest load of rubbish ive ever heard, if an australian murdered some one in america where the death penalty existed ,and he was sentenced to death,are you saying the usa should send him home for us to pay for his keep for the next 50 years,
When you go to any country be aware of the laws of that counrty, dont expect the australian taxpayer to pay for your wrong doings.Van knew if he was caught it was the hangman waiting for him and i have no sympathy for him if he had of returned to australia with his 400 grams which is 26,000 hits on the street .What are the chances that some ones loved ones would of overdosed and died even if .05%thats 52 people its better they caught him there .before he arrived back hereRandoid specialises in talking crap Amber - it's what he does best! :pirate: :dD

BTW, I'm glad Van was caught too. I wish all drug smugglers/pedlers/pushers etc were caught. :mad:

[dvd_beetle]

I don't believe another country should be able to impose its laws on people who are outside there spear of influence. In that case a tourist can only be negatively affected by the government. The tourist can not benefit from the foreign government, they are just constrained by there laws.

An proper government benefits and constrains a person. as a non-citizen they are not entitled to the benefits of the government and therefore should not be constrained by its laws.In that case their laws would be meaningless wouldn't they? You wouldn't be able to get a speeding fine.

If guests enter your home should they be governed by the rules of your house, or by the rules of theirs?

[RANDOID]

If your children are with you at someone elses house should they be under your rules or the rules of the owner of the house?

[ExecutoR]

If your children are with you at someone elses house should they be under your rules or the rules of the owner of the house?
ahhhhh thats the best argument i have heard for going against the punishment from other countries... very nice... EXCEPT you should have said "they should be under the other persons rules yet YOU should punish them for it."

The problem with this is the principle behind it. A parent of a child is in an assumed role of guardianship and responsibility for their child AND can be held accountable for their childs actions. A country does not have this same level of accountability with their citizens. Otherwise John Howard would be sitting on trial as well and being told off for not making sure his citizen was doing the right thing.

You want an obscure example that i can find that also fits my argument?

Screw it, i wont wait for a response... you're going to get them anyway...

1. A child who gets away with swearing at home, goes to school and swears his head off.
2. A child hits his sister at home and is allowed to get away with it, goes to school and hits other kids.

Both of these examples are pretty much the same. HOWEVER in both cases the school punishes under their rules. Why? Because they have an obligation to protect the other children and parents in their school because the school rules and spolicies are what the other people attending the school are assuming will be upheld, adhearded to and policed.

[RANDOID]

1. A child who gets away with swearing at home, goes to school and swears his head off.
2. A child hits his sister at home and is allowed to get away with it, goes to school and hits other kids.

Both of these examples are pretty much the same. HOWEVER in both cases the school punishes under their rules. Why? Because they have an obligation to protect the other children and parents in their school because the school rules and spolicies are what the other people attending the school are assuming will be upheld, adhearded to and policed.Realistically you can structure the punishment that the school issues, therefore remaining in control of the punishment.

but using a school as a analogy doesn’t fit. there are regulations and constraints that are above the school. It follows pre-set disciplinary regulations and realistically can't make up its own rules.

a country can though, that's why the 'at someone else’s house' analogy is better. The governments are the adults and the suspect is the children. Both adults in that case get to set there own rules. The issue lies with who should be able to punish the child;

Should the owner of the house be permitted to smack (discipline) the child for breaking the rules or should the parents be responsible for determining when the child has broken the rules and what the punishment should be.

I do think that people in other countries should be punished for breaking the law in other countries. But i think that Australia should be doing the punishment for our own citizens. Not some corrupt racist and religion biased 'government'.

In some countries the law states that if you steal then the government cuts off your hand. If you travel to one of these countries and, say... Your 10 year old child walks out of a store with a product in there hand, by accident, and they get tried and convicted of stealing... (that particular country states that a person over 8 can be tried as an adult) Should they have the right to maul your child to protect there stupid laws?

What if that child was holding your bag and a Chappell Corby scenario happened (a person plants drugs in the bag). And your child gets tried and convicted of drug smuggling. Should they have the right to kill your child to protect there stupid laws? (a child dosn't have the weight to have there neck snapped when being hung. so it would not be a quick or painless death.)

You and your girlfriend go to Nigeria... to Katsina state for 2 years on a working visa. You and your girlfriend have sex and your wife gets pregnant. Katsina state law states that pregnancy outside of marriage is grounds for being convicted of adultery. Adultery is punishable by death by stoning.
Should your wife and your unborn child be stoned to death to protect there stupid laws?

You get pregnant to a man in Wisconsin USA and you take the necessary steps to have that pregnancy terminated. Should you face life imprisonment to protect there stupid laws?

a few years ago Australians could go to countries without proper child abuse protection laws, abuse a child (as it was not a crime in that country) and return without punishment. Should that person go free simply because they broke one of our laws in another country?

Australians overseas, that break Australian or Local law should be extradited, there passport suspended, and be placed in front of an Australian court, be tried against breaking Australian law, and if convicted should serve there time in an Australian prison, under times set by Australian law.

[ExecutoR]

Why does the example not work?

I dont think you quite got my example. Let me explain it...

You send your child to a school... your child gets bullied and beaten... the school says there is nothing they can do because the parents wont allow it.

How do you feel? Justice?

School = Country
Child = Victim
Parent = Pissed off citizen wondering why the laws apply to everyone in the school but that child.

If i lived in Singapore and i had my way of life and some FOREIGNER comes and deals drugs in the country i live in, with a system i trust is in place to protect me and suddenly he is "let off" in my eyes. What faith would i have in my countries laws?

"You're in Sydney, you have a friend smoking pot. There is also a guy from amsterdam smoking pot. The cops pull up and arrest your friend, give the other guy a friendly pat on the back and trot your friend off to jail.

What would be the thought going through your mind?

[RANDOID]

"You're in Sydney, you have a friend smoking pot. There is also a guy from amsterdam smoking pot. The cops pull up and arrest your friend, give the other guy a friendly pat on the back and trot your friend off to jail.The Amsterdam guy would be deported...


I dont think you quite got my example. Let me explain it...I get your example but you don't seem to get why you can't use the school to represent a governmant. Schools are constrained by governmant policy that they can not change. Governmants can change there policy at a whim.

a school is a policy policing organisation not a policy generating organisation.

Your undoubtably going to use another analogy... use one that generates there own policy.

[HoundsOfLove]

ahhhhh thats the best argument i have heard for going against the punishment from other countries... very nice... EXCEPT you should have said "they should be under the other persons rules yet YOU should punish them for it."

The problem with this is the principle behind it. A parent of a child is in an assumed role of guardianship and responsibility for their child AND can be held accountable for their childs actions. A country does not have this same level of accountability with their citizens. Otherwise John Howard would be sitting on trial as well and being told off for not making sure his citizen was doing the right thing.

You want an obscure example that i can find that also fits my argument?

Screw it, i wont wait for a response... you're going to get them anyway...

1. A child who gets away with swearing at home, goes to school and swears his head off.
2. A child hits his sister at home and is allowed to get away with it, goes to school and hits other kids.

Both of these examples are pretty much the same. HOWEVER in both cases the school punishes under their rules. Why? Because they have an obligation to protect the other children and parents in their school because the school rules and spolicies are what the other people attending the school are assuming will be upheld, adhearded to and policed.


Agree 100%

[HoundsOfLove]

You and your girlfriend have sex and your wife gets pregnant




Wow that must have been some good sex!

[BiggyRat]

Wow that must have been some good sex!Not to mention a VERY understanding wife! :eek: :dD

[Lizard Drinkin]

I'm finding the "dueling analogies" somewhat overstated, but I think Randoid actually has a fascinating take on this.

What if we still used the "House" analogy for countries with governments as parents, then the "school" analogy for the global community? That way, school rules would reflect international law and the sanctions it can (or cannot :rolleyes: ) impose, and the report home to the parents would inform the disciplinary action to be taken. This probably would only reflect international piracy or the misbehaviour of multinational corporations where sovereignty is blurred.

Your child going to another person's "house" is more of a tourist/lone criminal scenario, where sovereignty is easy determined. I think I actually agree with Randoid's argument here: all parents have a disciplinary regime and for serious matters should have the sole right to impose it. For minor misdemeanours - say your kid is in some way shape of form endangering themselves, others or household property - then naturally the host parents should have the ability to act swiftly to contain a transient misdemeanour. This is something that is worked out between parents before a kid goes over to stay.

So, to extrapolate this to relations between countries, governments should come to an agreement on a case by case basis as to how their citizens will be treated within each other's borders. In Singapore's case, the Australian Government clearly does not have an agreement in place - so to seek extradition after the horse had bolted was far too late. In such cases, where it is known that your "child" will receive physical punishment from the host parent for serious misdemeanours, the "parent" should either forbid the "child" from "staying over" at that household, or expect the consequences if the child misbehaves.

So this brings me around to the Australian Government simply accepting that any of its citizens badly misbehaving in Singapore will be put to death. I may not agree with that acceptance, but that's the arrangement in place. If we disagree with the severity of Van Nguyen's sentence, then we should lobby our government to enter an agreement with Singapore to extradite serious offenders, with minor misdemeanours left in the hands of the host nation.

[dvd_beetle]

I do think that people in other countries should be punished for breaking the law in other countries. But i think that Australia should be doing the punishment for our own citizens. Not some corrupt racist and religion biased 'government'.In your incoherent rambling you make hardly any sense. The point is RANDOID, if you go to another country you know you are going to be governed by their laws, arrested by their police, and subjected to their legal system. If you don't like the idea of that, don't go there. If you don't agree with their laws it's your problem, not theirs.

[luther]

I do think that people in other countries should be punished for breaking the law in other countries. But i think that Australia should be doing the punishment for our own citizens. Not some corrupt racist and religion biased 'government'.

OK - if we catch an Indonesion, Malaysian or Singaporian trafficking drugs, or an American murdering someone here, you obviously believe it is also right that we send them back to their country to be executed?


The Amsterdam guy would be deported...

So if someone is here on holiday from Amsterdam, on their last couple of nights here, they can smoke pot freely in total disregard of Australian law. They will only be sent home, where they were about to go anyway, and their country will not punish them as they see nothing wrong. Great argument...:rolling:

Guess that also means in the following scenario:


In some Arab countries if a woman is raped the father and brother can accuse her of having an affair and decide whether to stone her, so if that girl was visiting here and it happened and the father murdered her on Australian soil, you would say oh well that's their laws ours don't apply to them and let them go on their merry way
Randoid is saying it's fine for the father/brother to chase that woman to Australia, stone her here, and just go back home! Congratulations, you have just said Australia lives by every country's rules that you are arguing against!

[custos]

If you don't want to abide by other countries laws do nottttttt go into their country.
I agree with that sentiment. But many people (not saying you, Houndsy) then draw the fallacious conclusion that people who do go to other countries should accept all the laws of that country, and so should the rest of the world. I don't agree that such a conclusion follows -- apartheid, slavery, female genital mutilation, severe corporal punishment for drinking alcohol... all of these are, or have been, "the law" in other countries. So too has execution for murder, selling drugs, and even just dissent against the government (China). That doesn't make it right or acceptable, and civilized countries should speak out against such human abuses whenever and wherever they occur.

[ExecutoR]

That doesn't make it right or acceptable...

It is only not acceptable to us because WE have not grown up with those laws.

WE HAVE NO RIGHT to go to someone else's country and say "HAHAHAHAHA suck crap guys i dont have follow your laws, your laws suck and theres nothing you can do about it." Then run around doing things that are legal in our home country but not theirs.

This is what some of you are saying. We have NO RIGHT to do so, their laws are not necessarily wrong, THEY ARE JUST DIFFERENT.


I get your example but you don't seem to get why you can't use the school to represent a governmant. Schools are constrained by governmant policy that they can not change. Governmants can change there policy at a whim.

a school is a policy policing organisation not a policy generating organisation.

Firstly, school only have to adhear to the Syllabuses of the state and follow those. Everything else is self created to ensure a certain school does not get sued.

A school creates its own policies and how to carry the punishment out when the person offends. I've been to a Christian school where a student says "shit" and get a detention, whereas a public school i went to some kid called a teacher "A F#$%ing Fag" and got a warning".

If you can seriousely and honestly tell me a school is different to a mini country you are kidding yourself.

My point with the school... and i try to explain it clearer... The people within the school expect to be looked after according to school policies, if a student does not adhear to these policies they should be dealt with, if not WHAT SECURITY DO THE OTHERS HAVE/FEEL?

It is the same when comparing to a school to people in a certain country... the people in that country expect a certain amount of policing within their country but if someone is punished different JUST BECAUSE they live in another country, how does that seem fair in that countries citizens eyes?